Search

There are several pressures that push war in the direction of the absolute, and imperil the human future. Perhaps, the foremost of these is emergence, use, retention, and proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the development of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been several close calls involving heightened dangers of wars fought with nuclear weapons, especially associated with the Cold War rivalry, none more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. To entrust such weaponry to the vagaries of political leadership and the whims governmental institutions seems like a Mt. Everest of human folly, and yet the present challenges to nuclearism remain modest and marginal despite the collapse of the deterrence rationale that seemed plausible to many during the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Underneath the tendency to develop for use whatever weapons and tactics that technology can provide is the fragmented political identities of a world divided into sovereign states. The inhabitants of these states of greatly varying size, capabilities, and vulnerabilities, have long been indoctrinated to view their own state through the idolatrous eyes of nationalism that view the extermination of the enemy as acceptable if necessary for national security or even desirable to satisfy national ambitions. The ideology of nationalism, nurturing the values of unquestioning patriotism, have led to an orientation that can be described as secular fundamentalism, vindicating militarist worldviews however dysfunctional given the risks and limits associated with gaining desired political ends by relying on military superiority. The crime of treason reinforces the absolutist claims of the secular state by disallowing defenses based on conscience, law, and belief.

As I have pointed out in other contexts, the militarily superior side has rarely prevailed in an armed conflict since the end of World War II unless also able to command the moral and legal heights wherein are located the symbols of legitimacy. The political failures of the colonial powers despite their military dominance provides many bloody illustrations of this trend of miltarist frustration that did not exist until the middle of the last century. Because of entrenched bureaucratic and economic interests (‘the military-industrial-media complex’), the experience is denied, military solutions for conflicts continue to be preferred, and futile recourse to war goes on and on.

One further check on the excesses of warfare is supposedly provided by the inhibiting role of conscience, the ethical component of the human sensibility. This sentiment was powerfully and memorably expressed by some lines in the Bertolt Brecht poem, “A German War Primer”:

General, your bomber is powerful

It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men

But it has one defect:

It needs a driver.

This ‘defect,’ a driver is both a human cost, and maybe a brake on excess, as Brecht suggests a few lines later:

General, man is very useful

He can fly and he can kill

But he has one defect:

He can think.

Of course, military training and discipline are generally effective in overcoming this defect, especially as backed up by the nationalist ideology discussed above, while international humanitarian law vainly tries to give support to thinking and respecting limits. The Nuremberg Trials of Nazi surviving leaders even went so far as to decide that ‘superior orders’ were no excuse if war crimes were committed.

In the nuclear age this process went further as the stakes were so high. I recall visiting the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) at the height of the Cold War. SAC was responsible for the missile force that then targeted many cities in the Soviet Union. What struck me at the time was the seeming technocratic indifference of those entrusted with operating the computers that would fire the missiles in contrast to the ideological zeal of the commanding generals who would give the orders to annihilate millions of civilians at a distant locations. I was told at the time that the lower ranked technical personnel had been tested to ensure that moral scruples would not interfere with their readiness to follow orders. I found this mix of commanders politically convinced that the enemy was evil and apolitical and amoral subordinates a frightening mix at the time, and still do, although I have not been invited back to SAC to see whether similar conditions now prevail. I suspect that they do, considering the differing requirements of the two roles. This view seems confirms by the enthusiasm expressed for carrying on the ‘war on terror’ in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

In this period new technological innovations in war making accentuate my earlier concerns. The reliance on drone attacks in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) removes the human person altogether from the war experience, except as in the role of programmer, and even here reliance on algorithms for targeting, removes any shred of responsibility. When mistakes are made, and innocent civilians are killed, the event is neutralized by being labeled ‘collateral damage,’ and an apology is issued but the practice goes on and is even extended. More important is the chilling effect of removing that human presence, both as a person of one’s own nation being at risk and as a source of potential questioning and even refusal. It should be recalled that the anti-war opposition of American soldiers in Vietnam exerted a powerful influence that helped over time finally to bring this failed war to an end.

What is at stake ultimately is the human spirit squeezed to near death by technological momentum, corporate greed, militarism, and secular fundamentalism. This web of historical forces continues to entrap major political actors in the world, and dims hopes for a sustainable future even without taking into account the dismal effects of the gathering clouds of climate change. Scenarios of future cyber warfare are also part of this overall process of destroying societies without risking lives directly. The cumulative effect of these developments is to make irrelevant the moral compass that alone provides acceptable guidance for a progressive human future.

33 Responses to “Warfare Without Limits: A Darkening Human Horizon”

Re your current blog: “Warfare Without Limits: A Darkening Human Horizon”,
Thanks for bringing into the same frame the perils of nuclearism and ‘the dismal effects of the gathering clouds of climate change’.

‘Climate change’ is the ’cause celebre’ in this 21st century while the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear nations, an expansionist arms industry and ‘safe’ nuclear energy (even post Fukushima) continues apace. I reckon you probably know Ashis Nandy’s “The Epidemic of Nuclearism: A Clinical Profile of the Genocidal Mentality” : http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/nandy_nuclearism.html in 1998. I think it’s an insightful essay as he brings it back to pathology deep in the psyche; and he writes this essay pre the horrible reality of ‘drones’: “You father the unthinkable because you have already psychologically orphaned your-self.”

In the current news cycle media ‘ethics’ is all the rage – post the unravelling of ‘News of the World’, (and add Master Chef which tops all TV ratings). Here in Australia, the two major political parties battle out the intricacies of a carbon tax – while any public discussion of ‘genocidal mentality’ or expansionist state and non-state militarism seems to have been allowed to go through to the keeper; and this is amidst an ever expanding US military presence on Australian soil; see the recent giant US-Australian war games, ‘Talisman Sabre 2011’, and local efforts to challenge Australia’s co-option into the US military machine: http://anti-bases.org/

Thanks for your very thoughtful blogs and keeping these urgent ethical matters alive.

Although not directly related, please allow me to offer a recent post that (very briefly) addresses the mindset that you are addressing; I would have sent it along privately, to avoid cluttering up your blog, but I am not aware of any such alternative. Thus please forgive any imposition; I offer it only for contemplation in your (very rare, I trust!) spare time, should you be so inclined. The post is “Conscious Evolution and Overpopulation” at the top of the “Who” page of http://www.DismantleIt.com. Blessings, and thank you, yet again.

Greed and power are the factors.
Impoverishing people even in a state as USA doesn’t matter.
Mass desdruction outside the USA and manipulating people through mass media owned by a very few is in accordance.

Cuts in education in the USA will secure that the average US citizen will be directed in exact the way favored by certain big companies.
It will fit in as the average people represent the majority.
Politicans are instrumented.

The EU is more and more becoming a dependance of the USA – seems to me.

What I wonder is: US ciizen are so pround of their political structures yet they don’t see to which point it is leading.
Having the freedom of carrying smaller weapons – for self defence even against politicans and political willpowers – will nowadays not help to overcome these devastating developments forced by owners and CEO’s of a few big Western companies.

As to Bertolt Brecht: he saw peoples behaviour in very difficult times. He saw the misuse of political power. Unfortunately he was blinded by an unrealistic hope. And he found it out very late. Too late for him.

His poem: “Kinderkreuzzug” (= children’s crusade)
could still fit in our world of today.
Not concerning the people of the Judaish beliefs of those older days, no.
Nowadays children of different colors, of different beliefs are affected. Too many orphans by willpower through warfare created.

This poem should be regarded in a different way whereas the basics are still the same.
Children should be our highest good, should be taken care of, should grow up in a world without too much destruction created by man.

Parents should be aware that they are responsible how they will leave this earth to their children.

With too much passive and dismissive behaviour they are too responsible for the outcome of greed and warfare.
Pollution our air and soil and waters through weapons and misuse of the different powers will affect the whole earth.
Thus affecting the global polulation – not only a few countries !

Mankind is declining: even most animals take more care about their offspring than man does.

And religion is still the manipulative power – misused and blinding people in almost the exact way as for thousands of years.

Human race hasn’t developed.
Humans are still missing their geo-social feeling which would secure that our earth could still a livable place in the future.

The fact is: our earth is in a catastrophal state created by the human race, by greed, by stupidity, by warfare.

As to 9/11: I am still wondering why chemists don’t say exactly how quick heat can travel through a building’s steel structure.
And enforce big buildings to implode.
This is the question together with others for the 9/11.

It is a fair point, but I was mainly relating my own experience of contact with those in this most powerful of countries dealing with this most powerful of weapons. I should have said this more pointedly.

Professor Falk, I took the liberty once again of re-posting this article having the same title in my Blog Today, attributing it to you with the link to this site. I embedded the 1970 music video ‘War’ by Edwin Starr – War (What Is It Good For?) at the top of the article to set the parameters.

My Blog being a work in progress, I will find the appropriate images relevant to the subject and insert them asap. So many people search Google images bringing so many people to a site they were not particularly looking for. Use lots of them in your future articles.

My last article before this is titled, ‘CanaDa’ posted on the occasion of our National Holiday, July 1st.

Having posted images of the major cities in CanaDa, those images have brought 317 viewers to that one article to date searching Google for images of CanaDa.

Professor Alan Dershowitz is re-scheduled to present his views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tomorrow between 1:15 to 2pm on the Michael Harris “Peace Project” on Ottawa’s CFRA Radio Talk Show from 1 to 3pm Eastern time. I hope you will be listening here,

Ray: Despite Dershowitz’s prominence I do not consider him a responsible advocate of a pro-Israeli position, and would not find a debate with him to be a constructive use of my time, nor of any help to those in the public seeking to understand the conflict better and in good faith. He obscures and distorts the Palestinian ordeal and viciously attacks those who try to expose the truth, e.g. Richard Goldstone (prior to his retraction). I appreciate your efforts,
nevertheless, to encourage open discussion of these sensitive issues.

First, worryingly the notion of nuclearism that you identify in nuclear weapon states such as the United States is exacerbated by the very organisations one would expect to be working to eradicate it. For instance, many prominent research foundations in the US favour funding projects that maintain and extend US national security, by approaching the US’ securitised problem of nuclear nonproliferation rather than the obligation of disarmament.

That is, projects that are funded generally pursue one of three lines of research: projects that seek to understand and combat nuclear terrorism; projects that work towards containing “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea; or projects that permit an enhanced role for the US in the international policy regarding both aspiring and actual nuclear weapons states.

The former two focuses are problematic for me because they largely feed rather than combat the nuclearism you describe. The latter troubles me because it implicitly bets on effective research and policy must have a prominent leadership role for the US.

If we look at the proposal for a nuclear weapon-free-zone in the Middle East for instance, we must acknowledge that it is not necessarily the US that is key to the success of such an agreement taking place. And yet, at least since 1995 – and arguably since the 1980s – such a zone has been widely viewed as critical to the long-term viability of the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime.

In my reading of the situation, this myopia is far worse in the US than in say the EU, but that may be me being a little unfair.

Second, the march towards technological progress led by economic imperatives that you describe makes this a crucial moment, in my view, to reflect on the notion of harm as it is carried out between and among people. In line with Andrew Linklater’s most recent work into ‘the problem of harm in world politics’, it appears to me a useful conceptual lens with which to examine a raft of concerns over the modern practice of warfare that relate to technology, IHL, economic interests, and so on.

Thanks, Ray, for encouraging such an appearance, but it is not feasible
for me to go to Ottawa for such a media event. It is important as you
suggest to get a more accurate view of the conflict before the Canadian public, but I am always reluctant to take the time and devote the resources to travel for such a purpose. I am not, in the end, a media person!

Richard, the substance of this warning from 3 years ago has come to pass. This is one of 2 of your articles I re-posted to my Blog verbatim. Our current elected leadership is projecting a 10 year war against ISIS. Leon Panetta is projecting 30 years of warfare without limits.

‘Leon Panetta, Head of Pentagon and C.I.A. under Obama, Says Brace for 30 Year War with ISIS’

Richard Falk

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He initiated this blog partly in celebration of his 80th birthday.